Support NeoGAF

[pantsmith]

This is so bizarre. One could argue that the US government as an institution is way more liable for 9/11 than the Saudi government without even considering conspiracy theories.

What? Are you implying the US was asking for it?

 

[Deleted member 1159]

The US actually declared war. 9/11 was a random attack by terrorists. very different circumstances

The US hasn't declared war since Word War II

 

[Goro Majima]

Technically, if the US wanted to push it we could also arrest many Saudi higher ups (and others) for price collusion in OPEC. It's never happened to my knowledge. I'm not sure why people think this bill would result in anything different. There's no teeth to it because they could never compel Saudi to comply with a US court order.

 

[Lord_Byron28]

What? Are you implying the US was asking for it?

No, its pretty well documented that people in GWB's administration were receiving warning signs about an imminent attack for months before 9/11. Some were even trying to get Bush to focus in on Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. However, Bush and his administration were not interested and instead were already exploring options to go to war with Iraq before the events of 9/11 had even unfolded.

 

[TheRealTalker]

Yeah.... I think you greatly over-exaggerate the bonds that tie SA with other countries in the neighbourhood. The Saudis buy their friendships, their "allies" know full well the shit disturbing nature of the Saudi Monarchy, their attempts to spread their shitty version of Islam and their support for terrorists, and none would hesitate to drop them if that same money was replaced from a more grounded source.

Also, it's a ridiculous assertion that any nation in the world would choose to downgrade their ties with the US over Saudi Arabia, no matter how chummy they are with the Saudis. I mean look at Saudi Arabia's silly attempts to turn the world against Iran after Nimr Al-Nimr's execution, the only countries they managed to convince to sever ties with Iran were some no-name backwater countries that included none of their GCC buddies(outside of Bahrain).

Frankly, with the hard economic times that Saudi Arabia has fallen in recently, and considering their frosty relationship with most of the EU and Russia, the Saudis need the US more than the US needs the Saudis.

The US already opened the door to getting sued by allowing US citizens to sue Iran, allowing them to sue Saudi monarchs will not result in anything more from the rest of the world.

And just as incapable. SA's greatest success comes from funding and supplying questionable rebel groups in Syria that all tie back to Al-Nusra.



The three power players in the region are going to eventually all be actively undermining each other. Currently the only reason Turkey and SA are not undermining each other significantly is because of the US relationship. Frankly, we need someone undermining Saudi Arabian Wahabiism, and letting Turkey and Iran do it will help.



Good, we agree.



This is the point I am making about the fracking era. The mechanisms that allowed for higher prices (OPEC) broke because of the proxy wars between Iran and SA and because supply surged from fracking. Even the threat of fracking is enough to give us the foundation to crush SA economically. Either oil stays cheap or it goes up enough that fracking becomes viable again. Either way, its a world where we no longer need SA.



Great, that's good for us. Regardless, Turkey is clearly looking to become more of a dominant player in the region's politics. Turkey will be a more important global player than Russia in 15 years (another demographics story).



Its not about the lawsuits themselves. Its about terminating the relationship. Its about raising public anger at this 'ally' to the point that it is politically toxic to work with SA.



You're citing anecdotal evidence, but the people who broke in were basically all Sadr supporters (who want to end the rule around representation in parliament based on Shia/Sunni/Kurd split). There will more likely than not be a Shia nation and a Kurd nation that come out of this due to the tensions that Sadr is now pushing. The US opponent that we made a deal with more than a decade ago is now starting to make moves to take over.

Even so, the tea leaves indicate the Shia portion of the country will break towards Iran. See: the 'militias' now active in the country that are IRGC, the voting bodies in their parliament that are basically plants from Iran, etc.



So? That doesn't require our relationship with them. It is more important to break the Salafist Wahabi ideology that is destroying Islam.



None of these countries are going to break towards SA over the US. Ever. It is the nation with aircraft carriers able to be deployed around the world vs. a small regional player who no longer has sway because of the dynamics of oil in the fracking age.



Most of the rest of the small countries will choose to align with either Turkey or SA. None of them will pull ambassadors from the US; it is too important a relationship. Most will lean towards Turkey if we make clear Turkey is our ally in the region (NATO).



Instability in Yemen created by SA because they have proven incapable of taking military action. Great job SA, you fought the Houthis and created yet another vacuum for extremism.



SA in a post-OPEC era has no friends.



What we can say with certainty is the fuel for Wahabiism is coming from one country and has for more than 40 years - Saudi Arabia.



Who to blame, the people who decided to invade despite US pressure behind the scenes not to, or the people who sold the weapons and gave the intelligence?

you guys could be right I am just looking at what if scenarios

and hoping that nothing as dramatic and tragic like Syria ever occurs

if it can just be diplomatic pressure for any country in the future then instead of bearing arms, causing civil wars or invading/bombing them (only to later do so called peace talks that protect the dictator since now they have some backseat deals going on) then I am all for it (since screw the monarch and screw dictators and those countries who put them in power and help them maintain it)

I am just really, really, REALLY tired of the so called liberation we saw the past few years that caused more harm then good (anything that would truly cause real harm to the citizens of the said nation)

 

[onepiecefan]

This seems like such a dumb bill, hopefully Obama doesn't sign it.

 

[gutter_trash]

Obama should sign it

The West needs to disavowe that oppressive theocracy

 

[raphier]

I said nothing on Iran. I wouldn't want an alliance with Iran either.

You won't win much sympathy points with this kind of thinking. If you won't, then Russia will. In long term, you lose friends while others gain friends. but you know this is gaf, so what do you know about beneficial friendships.

Obama should sign it

The West needs to disavowe that oppressive theocracy

And open that whoop can of words that will bite your country back in the ass. I guarantee you that there are a lot of people who would like to sue the west too.

 

[SecretMoblin]

Elizabeth Warren is a cosponsor.

Bernie Sanders, Ed Markey, and Al Franken are cosponsors. I'm not really a fan of the bill and think this harms the president's ability to effectively manage the nation's foreign policy, but it's hardly a right-wing trick.

 

[TheRealTalker]

Obama should sign it

The West needs to disavowe that oppressive theocracy

I am now more pro sign as well since we will learn more about that day

and that hopefully if the US can no longer ignore its long list of war crimes that it did to dozen of countries

 

[gutter_trash]

The West can't go on preaching human rights then hypothetical partner up with the worst human rights offender (Sauds) and the biggest exporter of state sponsored extremistm

 

[pantsmith]

No, its pretty well documented that people in GWB's administration were receiving warning signs about an imminent attack for months before 9/11. Some were even trying to get Bush to focus in on Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. However, Bush and his administration were not interested and instead were already exploring options to go to war with Iraq before the events of 9/11 had even unfolded.

Doesn't mean the US is responsible for 9/11. Failures to prevent something are by no means equivalent to harboring and supporting the people planning an attack on that scale.

I'm not defending the US government or their general shittiness, but the post I responded to implies the same kind of victim blaming that might feel good but it ultimately rooted in logical fallacy.

 

[Alavard]

The West can't go on preaching human rights then hypothetical partner up with the worst human rights offender (Sauds) and the biggest exporter of state sponsored extremistm

Sure, but it seems strange to give that job to America's civil courts.

 

[gutter_trash]

Sure, but it seems strange to give that job to America's civil courts.

Baby steps and public awareness

 

[Diprosalic]

Saudi Arabia harbored and financed terrorists. They should be brought to justice.

America would never do this.

 

[Alavard]

Baby steps and public awareness

Seems more like shifting the responsibility, to be honest.

 

[Stinkles]

Elizabeth Warren is a cosponsor.

Bernie Sanders, Ed Markey, and Al Franken are cosponsors. I'm not really a fan of the bill and think this harms the president's ability to effectively manage the nation's foreign policy, but it's hardly a right-wing trick.

I think the point is that Republicans have effectively reversed their stance and are supporting Democrats for political rather than ethical reasons. These after all are the folks who supported the Iraq adventure in the first place, and are complicit in the early and deliberate protection of Saudi Arabia.

 

[Abounder]

I think the point is that Republicans have effectively reversed their stance and are supporting Democrats for political rather than ethical reasons. These after all are the folks who supported the Iraq adventure in the first place, and are complicit in the early and deliberate protection of Saudi Arabia.

Hillary and co. also voted for Iraq and are allies with SA, not to mention she wants to sue gun manufacturers for school shootings which isn't too far off from this bill

 

[Jack Random]

Obama is really going to veto a bill that got an unanimous approval from the Senate?

I'm completely against Obama in case and if he does veto it I'll seriously reconsider thinking he is a good president.

imagine for a moment, that this happens, and now it's "ok" for private citizens of the US to sue the Saudi Government for this....

and now consider that over 500,000 Iraqis died as a result of our invasion. Do you want a precedent to exist which would allow their families to sue the US?

 

[Stinkles]

Hillary and co. also voted for Iraq and are allies with SA, not to mention she wants to sue gun manufacturers for school shootings which isn't too far off from this bill

No lies detected. But they're not traditionally hawkish and the two sides aren't doing this for the same reasons.

 

[SecretMoblin]

I think the point is that Republicans have effectively reversed their stance and are supporting Democrats for political rather than ethical reasons. These after all are the folks who supported the Iraq adventure in the first place, and are complicit in the early and deliberate protection of Saudi Arabia.

The bill was first introduced in the 2009-2010 session. If this was an election ploy on the part of Republicans, it's a remarkably clever one. And yes, plenty of current Senate Democrats who supported the Iraq adventure are pushing hard for this.

Unconscionable support of SA has a long and lovely history, up to and including the entirety of the Clinton and Obama administrations. No side is "ethical" when it comes to realpolitik.

 

[Stinkles]

The bill was first introduced in the 2009-2010 session. If this was an election ploy on the part of Republicans, it's a remarkably clever one. And yes, plenty of current Senate Democrats who supported the Iraq adventure are pushing hard for this.

Unconscionable support of SA has a long and lovely history, up to and including the entirety of the Clinton and Obama administrations. No side is "ethical" when it comes to realpolitik.

I don't think it's an election ploy. I don't think the republicans have any idea what they're doing right now. And I agree, both sides are shitheels, but both sides are supporting it for different reasons.


The 28 pages need to be released as a start. And we need a proper investigation into the war criminals who destroyed the middle east after 911. And they weren't from Saudi Arabia.

 

[TheRealTalker]

If SA got any balls they'd man up and say they'd go to court if it is in the international criminal court and that all evidence for everything must be on the table without things being kept classified

since at worst this will hurt the US more then it would hurt them

then we'd see if the US is bluffing or not

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Its weird, on other forums you can get past 2 pages on a 9/11 thread without Truthers barging their way in.

Were they all banned on GAF?

 

[MooMilk2929]

So if you sue them do you gotta go through Saudi court? If it's through US court that means Saudi is gonna have to start training saudi arabia lawyers in US law or it has to hire US lawyers. And if US gets opened up to being sued for what they do then what court does that have to go through. I imagine if it don't go through US courts then US won't win that easily in some courts.

 

[Plasma]

I like how America can pass a bill to allow victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia for funding terrorism while they also continue sell arms to them.

 

[TheRealTalker]

So if you sue them do you gotta go through Saudi court? If it's through US court that means Saudi is gonna have to start training saudi arabia lawyers in US law or it has to hire US lawyers. And if US gets opened up to being sued for what they do then what court does that have to go through. I imagine if it don't go through US courts then US won't win that easily in some courts.

to which I say the best place is the International criminal court

but both SA and US are not part of such a institution

like I stated in my prior post SA has less to lose in the large scale scheme of things (when it comes to foreign crimes) then the US does

so whoever has real toughness will jump in first and see if the other country backs down


that and the fact that I really want world powers to enter the criminal court and actually make that place have some actual merit in the future

 

[bigmit3737]

I like how America can pass a bill to allow victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia for funding terrorism while they also continue sell arms to them.

Can you elaborate on this please? Who is the US selling arms to?
I'm not trying to be snarky, but just trying to learn.

Thanks.

 

[Balphon]

Can you elaborate on this please? Who is the US selling arms to?
I'm not trying to be snarky, but just trying to learn.

Thanks.

Everyone. The US is the largest arms exporter in the world by far.

SA is the US's largest customer in foreign military sales, as well: http://m.state.gov/md253853.htm

 

[Plasma]

Can you elaborate on this please? Who is the US selling arms to?
I'm not trying to be snarky, but just trying to learn.

Thanks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34838937

 

[Corronchilejano]

The US actually declared war. 9/11 was a random attack by terrorists. very different circumstances

The US hasn't declared war since World War II. Iraq was a military engagement authorized by the US Congress. The UN even declared that specific war illegal (I mean, sure, it's just the UN but still).

It was done under false pretenses for made up reasons affecting a country that had never engaged the US in any sort of hostility.

So again, when will Iraqis be able to sue the US? Nobody told the US to go to Iraq.

 

[foxuzamaki]

You can do that?

 

[Netherscourge]

Hello slippery slope...

What's to stop Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanis or any other conflict-collateral victims from suing the USA when it 'accidentally' bombs civilian neighborhoods?

Suddenly those drone strike miscalculations are going to be very, very expensive...

 

[TheRealTalker]

wait I just realized something

if this bill passes beside other countries passing their own bills, and besides 9/11 what is stopping some random Americans suing every country for everything


like random lawsuits on Canada for some obscure blame on something or suing like crazy.

 

[bigmit3737]

Everyone. The US is the largest arms exporter in the world by far.

SA is the US's largest customer in foreign military sales, as well: http://m.state.gov/md253853.htm

Thanks. I know the US is the largest arms exporter but I didn't know they were directly supplying terrorists. I guess they are indirectly supplying them.


EDIT: Just read your link.

" Saudi Arabia is the United States’ largest FMS customer"

What does FMS stand for in this case?

Thanks.

 

[MANUELF]

I like how America can pass a bill to allow victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia for funding terrorism while they also continue sell arms to them.

The US is also the seller of the cartel arms in Mexico, they are bought there and used here, plus if they could regulate their population drug addictions the cartels wouldnt have this much money or power

 

[Abounder]

wait I just realized something

if this bill passes beside other countries passing their own bills, and besides 9/11 what is stopping some random Americans suing every country for everything


like random lawsuits on Canada for some obscure blame on something or suing like crazy.

Sounds like trickle down from the infamous TPP and its Investor-State Dispute Settlement clause. One step closer to a global government lol

 

[SecretMoblin]

Thanks. I know the US is the largest arms exporter but I didn't know they were directly supplying terrorists. I guess they are indirectly supplying them.


EDIT: Just read your link.

" Saudi Arabia is the United States’ largest FMS customer"

What does FMS stand for in this case?

Thanks.

"Foreign Military Sales"